Category: Epistemology and Method

  • “You can’t understand decidability without computer science.—Propertarian Fran

    —“You can’t understand decidability without computer science.—Propertarian Frank

    That’s the conclusion I came to. I can read all those thinkers at the turn of the 20th century. And then I read … just ONE paper by Turing, and .. I get it. It wasn’t until I got to Mises and I understood he had it wrong somehow, but right somehow. It just took me a long time to put it all together.

    Computers are a different way of thinking – a NEW way of thinking. They are as different as empiricism was from reason, and as different as rationalism was from reason, and as different as geometry was from arithmetic.

    We burned a century because babbage couldn’t get his machine into production on a meaningful (military) problem.

    We burned almost 2000 years because Achimedes was his era’s Babbage, and Athens and Sparta were our era’s Germany and Britain.

    We could have dragged humanity out of ignorance and poverty 2000 years ago.

    I know why now. I know what we do wrong.

    And we, in our generation, must fix it forever.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 22:28:00 UTC

  • “Doolittle’s Chainsaw: What is the particular decision problem this concept solv

    —“Doolittle’s Chainsaw: What is the particular decision problem this concept solves, and what are the particular actions and transformations we use to achieve decidability?”— @Propertarian Frank


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 22:11:00 UTC

  • DOOLITTLE’S CHAINSAW: WHY WE USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE by @Propertarian Frank (be

    DOOLITTLE’S CHAINSAW: WHY WE USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE

    by @Propertarian Frank

    (better than I can say it)(this man is an artist)

    We use consistent naming with consistent and unique delineation.

    And we start constructing our language by naming actions and transformations, rather than using names for ‘ideals’ or ‘essences’ or ‘ontological’ primitives, which are characterized by their inaccessibility to observation (discerning through measurement).

    You can tell if a language employs idealist concepts by subjecting them to Curt Doolittle’s Chainsaw (lol) : “what is the particular decision problem this concept solves, and what are the particular actions and transformations we use to achieve decidability?”

    For instance, the concept ‘mass’, provides commensurability among physical objects of similar scale, and is used to decide a wide variety of questions from mechanics to pricing groceries.

    The specific way in which we construct and use instruments to measure ‘mass’ constitute the particular actions and transformations that are named by the symbol ‘mass’ and its unit of measurement. (Just as standard library functions in programming languages compile to specific machine instructions, so do operational names compile to specific actions and transformations )

    Thus, there’s no single concept ‘mass’, but rather a spectrum of it, determined, and limited by tools of measurement at different scales.

    You can idealize ‘mass’ by treating it as if it isn’t limited and determined by measurement (action), but that doesn’t mean ‘mass’ in formal operational grammar deploys that idealism.

    Doolittle’s Chainsaw lets you know if an idealism is completely devoid of operationalizable content or not. For instance, while ideal ‘mass’ can be salvaged (operationally defined), things like infinity, continuum are not.

    This idealist approach to language (also called Platonism), as opposed to operational language, is the single largest source of error in all domains of human knowledge. From mathematics (infinity, uncomputable numbers), to physics, to economics, to law (e.g. property rights as unconstructed ideal attributes, equality), to philosophy (lol almost all of it), across all levels of intellect, thinkers evidently fall for it.

    This is why Curt says widespread adoption of operationalism will be at least as large a leap as empiricism over rationalism, and rationalism over mysticism were.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 21:14:00 UTC

  • FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON (worth repeating) ***There is a very great similarity

    FOR FANS OF AUSTRIAN ECON

    (worth repeating)

    ***There is a very great similarity between the economic calculation debate against classical economics and the intuitionist-constructivist against classical mathematics. Once you see the parallel you will see how this is not a problem of math or economics but of epistemology that popper suggested: it is increasingly difficult to make truth propositions that are dependent upon deductions, unless we can also construct the result we have deduced without the need for deduction.***


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 10:56:00 UTC

  • RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure) RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly

    RELIGION = FEEL (fully intuit – absence of measure)

    RATIONALISM = THINK ( partly intuit – measure internally)

    SCIENCE = CALCULATE (minimally intuit-maximally measure externally)

    (feels, thinks, and reals)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:42:00 UTC

  • RELIGION = FEEL RATIONALISM = THINK SCIENCE = CALCULATE (feels, thinks, and real

    RELIGION = FEEL

    RATIONALISM = THINK

    SCIENCE = CALCULATE

    (feels, thinks, and reals)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 09:30:00 UTC

  • “Curt, please explain to me how thinking formally is not using idealism?”—Sira

    —“Curt, please explain to me how thinking formally is not using idealism?”—Siraaj Khandkar

    “Formally” means internally consistently.

    Thinking operationally requires correspondence with reality.

    Thinking operationally is not thinking ideally.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 08:42:00 UTC

  • “I am beginning to see the other side of the argument more clearly, though. It’s

    —“I am beginning to see the other side of the argument more clearly, though. It’s not ‘lying’. If a value system survives the Darwinian test, then it is useful or ‘true enough’. So far as I can tell, p13m isn’t able to provide us with the top level values, unless maybe that value is agency/sovereignty.”— William Butchman

    Is agency (transcendence). Sovereignty, natural law, and markets in everything are the way to get there. REALLY. In reality. not as a lie.

    And I do understand why you want to make exceptions for lies of convenience, but when you do, you open the door for lies of parasitism and destruction. The west has been destroyed twice now through (a) judeo-christianity, and (b) jewish pseudoscience.

    I just don’t think it’s necessary to claim that which is GOOD is TRUE. It is not. Just as what is preferable is not GOOD. It is just preferable.

    I think that it is possible to find binding narratives as did the ancients in our literature. Homer, Arthur, Neibelungelied. Alexander, Caesar, … the lot of them. The scientists. The saints. Why is it we need lies when we have truths with which to say the same things?

    Will people visit a church (school, academy, property registry, insurer of last resort) if they are taught the semitic lies? Or will they if they are taught our law, and our narratives, and our literature to support them.

    There is no reason that the books that make up the west, are not just as possible to select (and eliminate) as were the books of the bible, or the verses of any other religion.

    The counter is to say that the west has no worthy literature of its own.

    Paganism survived until the 1500’s in northern europe.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 00:30:00 UTC

  • CAN YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE YOU NEED? At number of people that I am close to, and

    CAN YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE YOU NEED?

    At number of people that I am close to, and who understand propertarianism well enough, have intuited, suggested, complained, or passionately argued, that a negative philosophy is not sufficient for them, because they intuit, want, and need ‘more’ than via-negativa on the one hand, and transcendence on the other. These people feel the need for a narrative that they can use to visualize, empathize with, some intuition or ideal.

    I’ve seen others attempt to appropriate propertarianism to justify their priors only to realize that it helps explain but does not justify, and may ultimately falsify good portions of those priors. (Libertarians).

    I’ve seen others who understand that natural law gives license for us to use violence to overthrow the current order, and restore our aristocratic order – whether or not the understand the epistemology, ethics, or anything else I’ve written.

    I’ve seen others with religious conviction thrilled at the possibility of restoring our ancient order, only to be horrified that in restoring the church I would eradicate all semitic fictionalism (lying), and return to hero worship, of not only saints (submissives-reactors), but innovators (thinkers), and Warriors and Statesmen (dominants-actors). In other words, I would complete the reformation of christianity into a restoration of our native religion (Aryanism) that the Germans had tried to make.

    A very small number of us just wish to understand, and to take power, and if necessary, to rule. I have produced what I want: a method of reforming the government. I

    I’ve tried for the past two years, mostly at Josh’s insistence to solve this problem. And I have remained fairly constant in my intuition that we must supply narratives in multiple languages on top of natural law. And I think this is the challenge for those who understand but must either compose or select which narratives do that for them.

    I believe that the only monopoly is the laws: the laws of nature, the laws of the limits of man, the laws of cooperation, and the law of testimony (truth). And that the only form of social order compatible with those laws is sovereignty, natural law, and markets in everything, as I have stated many times before.

    I believe that we require a division of narrative as much as we have a division of comprehension. I believe that our ancestors were correct and it was their failure to discover natural law that made them vulnerable to the great lies.

    I believe I can suggest a method of reforming the church both financially, institutionally, in doctrine, and in narratives.

    I believe the restoration of that church will require the return to poly-heroism instead of a monopoly on submissiveness by the prophets and saints.

    I believe it is necessary to restore poly-‘literature’ rather than monotheism, or any kind of theism. Although I can understand the need for theistic (supernatural) fiction, just as I myself understand and appreciate moral supernatural fiction (horror stories, scary legends, and myths).

    I believe it is possible (although not by me alone) to select readings that advance narrative solutions that are, aside from their fiction, or fictionalism, compatible with natural law.

    And I believe the simple need authoritarian supernatural, the ordinary need moral narrative, the average need philosophical narrative, and those of us above average need scientific narratives provided by the laws.

    And I believe that these narratives are compatible if compatible by natural law.

    And I believe that I cannot select those narratives by myself. I believe I cannot write them. I believe that in our history others have written all that need be written.

    And I believe it is those who seek those narratives and who understand natural law sufficiently to judge those narratives moral or not, ‘coherently true’ or not, and not false by natural law, that must provide those readings.

    Because I cannot possibly cover those literatures. In no small part because they fall on deaf ears, deaf empathy, deaf joys, and deaf fears. I have none of them

    I will have done my duty to my people by writing the laws in the language that I need and understand. I will have done my duty to my class in providing the rules and method of rule. But I am not able to do serve my people in the survey of occult, supernatural, supernormal, heroic, martial, political, historic, poetic, verse – although I can, and in my age, assuming I live – manage the artistic.

    The literature of our restoration exists. I have made the law. If you want to restore your civilization, and you want to provide those like you with a narrative, a via-positiva, then perhaps it is your duty, and your service, to your ambitions and your people, that you provide those parables.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 21:20:00 UTC

  • “BEING” IN THE SPECTRUM OF EXISTENCE Grammar. 1 – Existence: Persistence. Existe

    “BEING” IN THE SPECTRUM OF EXISTENCE

    Grammar.

    1 – Existence: Persistence. Existence independent of experience,

    2 – Observing: observation of phenomenon in existence.

    3 – Acting: taking actions limited by existence.

    4 – Imagining: the full set of pre-rational experiences

    5 – Feeling: the full set of pre-cognitive experiences.

    6 – Being(Experiencing): the full set of human experiences of existence. (including dreaming, daydreaming, fantasizing, free association, reasoning, calculating.)

    7 – Reporting: narrating experiences.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 17:19:00 UTC